• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 26, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
CUBA/DEPARTMENT
AFGHANISTAN/REGION
IRAQ/SYRIA/REGION
TURKEY/REGION
SYRIA/REGION
TURKEY/IRAQ/REGION
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE/DEPARTMENT

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:12 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hey, everybody. I'm going to have to make today's briefing a little bit short since I've got something following this. So we'll get – I just have a quick something at the top, and then we'll get right to it.

In Central African Republic, the United States condemns the violence surrounding protests on the 24th of October in the Central African Republic. We call on all Central Africans to reject violence and refrain from rhetoric that could incite violence. The UN peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic is an essential element in the security necessary for the CAR to move beyond crisis. The United States strongly supports the work of our UN and our Central African partners to promote peace and long-term stability in CAR. Inclusive dialogue is the key to preventing further unrest and maintaining the progress achieved by President Touadera, the CAR Government, and MINUSCA to ensure a peaceful future for all Central Africans.

We welcomed the first meeting on the 12th of October of the Consultative and Oversight Committee of the National Program of Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration, and Repatriation, and the participation of most of the CAR's armed groups. We encourage those groups that have not yet sent representatives to do so now.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you. I want to start somewhere in an unusual or different place than we have been doing normally. And I realize that both Ambassador Power, USUN, and the White House have spoken about this so I'll be – already, but I'll be brief. On the abstention on the Cuba resolution in the General Assembly today, as you probably expected, members of Congress who do not agree with the Administration's approach to Cuba are crying foul about this. And I'm wondering, does the Administration no longer believe that it is its obligation as the executive to uphold or defend what is the law of the land?

MR KIRBY: I think we've talked about this before, Matt. We understand what the law is, and the embargo is law, and so we have an obligation to obey it and we do. That doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't examine policies that we believe are in the best interests of the United States, and the President has made a decision – a policy decision – that it is in the best interest of the United States to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba and to seek the end of the embargo. But we all recognize it's still law. That's not being disputed here. What we're saying is that we believe the embargo should be lifted, and the President will continue to work with Congress to that end.

QUESTION: Right. Well, I think everyone has heard that argument, but some people don't necessarily agree with it. They would say that the law is the law. It's not a policy; it is the law that governs the Administration's conduct. And if the Administration's conduct doesn't support that or at least defend it in an international fora, doesn't that suggest – this argument goes – doesn't that suggest that the Administration believes itself to be more – the Executive believes itself it to be more equal than at least one of the other two co-equal branches of government that we have in this country?

MR KIRBY: I don't know if it's physically possible to be more equal if you're equally equal. And we –

QUESTION: Well, it's an expression from Animal Farm. You might have heard of it.

MR KIRBY: You got me on literature there. But look, we obviously are fully cognizant of the fact that the embargo is law, and the Administration doesn't hold itself above law. We obey the law, and that is the law. It doesn't mean that – it doesn't --

QUESTION: Well, but you won't defend it in front of – before an international institution that is condemning it?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think as Ambassador Power said in her statement today, the President made clear his opposition to the embargo and called on Congress to take action to lift it. And yet, while the Administration agrees that the U.S. embargo on Cuba should be lifted, we do not support the shift for the reason stated in the resolution itself. And as – again, I'm quoting the Ambassador, but I think it's important – as she said very clearly, "All actions of the United States with regard to Cuba have been and are fully in conformity with the UN Charter and international law, including applicable trade law and the customary Law of the Sea." So any idea or suggestion that we're somehow trying to flout law here is just inaccurate.

But that doesn't mean that the President's policy, while it opposes the embargo, is wrong. It's the President's prerogative as Commander-in-Chief to set foreign policy for the United States. And his foreign policy is that we're going to establish diplomatic relations, we're going to open up our relationship with Cuba and seek the end of the embargo, and seek the end of an embargo; in other words, work with Congress to that end.

QUESTION: Right. But until you get to that end, is it --

MR KIRBY: We're going to obey the law.

QUESTION: Isn't it incumbent upon you that not only obey it, but to defend it against condemnation or criticism?

MR KIRBY: There were other things in the resolution that we took issue with that led to the abstention. But again --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- we're going to obey the law. We're going to follow the law. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with it and the basis for it. I mean, we had a discussion the other day I think about --

QUESTION: JASTA.

MR KIRBY: -- about JASTA. It is the law of the land. We will obey the law of the land. But we objected to it --

QUESTION: Yeah. Except you're going to try and fix it.

MR KIRBY: We objected to it before it was passed. And as I think I made clear, that the Secretary is going to stay engaged on this issue to continue to try to seek a better outcome. But it is the law.

QUESTION: Right. JASTA is not a very good example because yes, you did object to it beforehand, but you didn't object to the – this Administration couldn't have objected to the embargo before it was, because – well, the president was just born then maybe when it passed.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So there --

MR KIRBY: My point is --

QUESTION: There's a big difference here.

MR KIRBY: I didn't mean it was a perfect example.

QUESTION: No, no, no. But --

MR KIRBY: But the point I'm trying to make is you can still follow the law and obey the law, at the same time having a discussion with Congress about your concerns about it.

QUESTION: Right. Except that some of these – some of the members of Congress who have come out and expressed concern on both sides of the aisle, not just Republican and frequent Republican critics of the Administration, but Democrats as well, say that if you don't – this is – the embargo has been passed and maintained in place by both Democratic and Republican administrations since 19 – the '60s.

MR KIRBY: In keeping with the foreign policy agenda of the United States up to now.

QUESTION: Right. But until it is no longer the law of the land, you're saying that the Executive Branch doesn't believe that it has an obligation to defend it?

MR KIRBY: We have an obligation to obey it and to follow it, and that's what we're doing.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Can we go to Afghanistan? Do you have any clarity on what may have happened with the killing of these 26 Afghan men? I realize you may not because it's Afghanistan and there aren't U.S. --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- persons involved. But I guess the key question is whether you think this incident might be – whether the killings may have been carried out by Islamic State militants, or if that seems implausible to you given the location.

MR KIRBY: There's a lot there, Arshad. It's difficult to know with certainty, and I don't think that – again, my Pentagon colleagues might have more information on this, but I don't think they do – that we really know exactly what happened here. So I can't stand here before you and rule out that Daesh, or ISIL, had a hand in this or were responsible. We'll have to try to learn more as time goes on since this is a relatively fresh report.

That said, it is no secret that we have been long concerned about ISIL's eyes on Afghanistan and their desires to have a presence there. In fact, for now almost a year-and-a-half if not two years, President Ghani has spoken about this, and so has our commanders in Afghanistan. So this is something that their desires to metastasize into Afghanistan is something we've been long watching. I certainly could not rule out their hand in this. We just don't know enough right now.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we stay on Daesh and the battle of Mosul?

MR KIRBY: Sure, sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Is it turning out to be like a slog, or how are things moving? How are they progressing?

QUESTION: No.

MR KIRBY: Elise, do you want to come take the podium?

QUESTION: Not today.

MR KIRBY: Not today, all right. Look, I mean, we're how many days into this, Said? And now we're already talking about slog? What's the next thing we're going to be asking about? Quagmire? I mean, this is --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: This just started. And we said all along that this was going to be, first of all, a long road to get to the operation, because it had to be done when the Iraqis were ready, and now they are. And we said even before, even while we were doing shaping operations, that taking back Mosul was going to be a tough fight and was going to take a while, and it was going to be ugly because of the terrain and because of the nature of the city itself and their presence in Mosul.

And so look, we're only a few days into this. And actually, they are making good progress. They're mainly still on the outskirts of Mosul, but they have achieved a measure of success. And oh, by the way, there's been good coordination between the Peshmerga and the ISF, and there were people, critics, saying well, that's never going to happen. Well, it's happening.

So we've got to give them time and space to continue to execute their plan, but military operations are never clear-cut things. You're going to meet resistance. The enemy gets a vote. Things don't always go according to plan. I'm not saying that this isn't; I'm just saying that we need to all be prepared to watch this on a daily basis and not get ahead of it.

QUESTION: Well, because of all these – all the different groups and all the moving parts in this thing, is the United States – is it maybe – has it made a mistake by not taking command and control of this operation? And perhaps because it has a better experience, and whether in the fight in Mosul in the old days, 2003 and 2004, and so on?

MR KIRBY: No, absolutely not. No, this – no, no, I couldn't disagree more. I mean, we've also long said for going on two years now, that in order to achieve a truly sustainable defeat of this group, it has to be done with indigenous forces. Now, one of the lessons we've learned over the last 15, 16 years is yes, the American military can do a lot of things and do it very, very well, but the way to sustain a defeat against extremists on soil is to make sure that indigenous forces and secure – and a security apparatus is in place and capable of not only defeating, but then stabilizing afterward; that sometimes the presence of foreign troops alone can be – can be the irritant required to keep extremists interested in an area, that we can actually make the situation worse.

The second thing I'd say – I see you, Elise. Give me a second. The second thing I'd say is that we tend to forget Iraq is a sovereign country. I know we talked about Iraq for much of the last decade as if it was some – it was a territory. It's a sovereign country and Prime Minister Abadi must maintain command and control over the forces inside his country, and he does. And we've long said that if you're going to be involved in the fight against ISIL, we want all those things coordinated and under Prime Minister Abadi's command and control.

That's the way to achieve a lasting defeat against this group, which is why our role has been one – not just because we wanted it, but because Prime Minister Abadi wanted it – one of training, advising, assisting, helping improve their battlefield competency, confidence, and capability so that they could mount this – well, all these operations, but this one in particular – successfully, and then maintain the defeat of ISIL over time and stabilize Mosul going forward. That can't be done by foreign forces. It needs to be done by Iraqi forces.

QUESTION: Can you – can you talk a little bit about Raqqa? Secretary Carter said today that he thought that the advance on Raqqa would be taking place in a few weeks and it – he seemed to suggest that perhaps that the coalition was moving up the advance on Raqqa with the Kurds --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- because of potentially some – some external threats.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I've seen the Secretary's comments. I don't have much to add. Obviously, we all share a sense of urgency about Raqqa. Secretary Kerry has talked about the importance of eliminating Daesh's presence in Raqqa. I won't get ahead of military operations and timing; really, that's much better for our Defense Department colleagues to speak to, nor will I go into great detail about intelligence assessments.

But I think it is a fact and well known that Daesh continues to plot against Western targets, they continue to try to inspire foreign fighters to take up their twisted aims in countries outside the region, including Western countries. And so we're always monitoring that threat. It's a very real threat and we take it seriously. And Raqqa is, for all intents and purposes, their capital in Syria, so it does have significant importance to them, and therefore it must by definition have significant importance to those of us who are fighting them.

QUESTION: You also said that – if I may – just a follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Elise, did you have a follow-up? Just let me – okay.

QUESTION: On the same issue, he also said that the United States is working to create local or – local groups to fight ISIS in Raqqa.

MR KIRBY: In --

QUESTION: Could you elaborate on that? What does that mean?

MR KIRBY: In keeping with exactly my answer to you before about indigenous forces, look, in Iraq it's much easier to define what indigenous forces are, because you have a uniformed army and we do have some militia forces that are arrayed along with Iraqi Security Forces. And of course, you have Peshmerga forces, so it's easy to sort of identify and articulate and define what indigenous forces are in Iraq.

It's harder to do that in Syria, obviously. But we – we are working and have been working with a number of groups on the ground in Syria, and again, I'd point to my Defense Department colleagues to further identify who they'd be working with with respect to Raqqa. But there are many Syrian forces that we have been supporting against Daesh inside Syria, and I suspect that they would play a role.

QUESTION: So the United States will not, let's say, cooperate with the Syrians or the Russians for the battle of Raqqa?

MR KIRBY: The --

QUESTION: I mean, if they offer that kind of assistance.

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to hypothesize. I mean, there's no – but let me be clear that there's no intent or effort to coordinate with the Assad regime, and we've said this before, on any counter-Daesh operation inside Syria. There will be no coordination with the Assad regime. And as for the rest of military efforts to go after Daesh inside Syria or in Raqqa, I'd let my Defense Department colleagues speak to that.

QUESTION: Raqqa?

QUESTION: Turkey arrested two democratically elected co-mayors of Diyarbakir today, and I wanted to know what your response to that is.

MR KIRBY: Give me a second. I have it. So we're closely monitoring the situation following the detention of the Diyarbakir's elected co-mayors on charges of supporting terrorism. We strongly condemn, as you know, the PKK's terrorist attacks, and we again call on the PKK to cease that violence, to renounce terrorism, and to reengage in a peaceful political process that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. There's no justification for its attacks in Turkey. We urge that any expressions of concern over the co-mayors' detention be peaceful and in compliance with the law. We also urge Turkish law enforcement and other authorities to act with due restraint and respect for the freedom of expression.

As Turkish authorities investigate allegations that some local officials have participated in or have provided material support to terrorist groups, we note the importance of respect for due process. This, again, is nothing new; we've said this time and time again. Respect for due process is enshrined in the Turkish – is as enshrined in the Turkish constitution and will ensure that the results of these investigations will reinforce confidence in the judicial system among Turkish citizens.

QUESTION: Would you go as far as the statement that the EU issued, in which it, quote, "reiterates its call for a political solution: Arms must be laid down…a political solution is the only viable option," which seems to be directed both towards Ankara and to the Kurds in Turkey? Would you agree with that statement?

MR KIRBY: I think I've just reacted to your question about the detention of these two individuals.

QUESTION: Could I – can I interpret it as meaning that you're basically saying the same thing as the EU, reiterating your call for a political solution, or is there some distance between you and the EU?

MR KIRBY: You were asking me about the detention of these co-mayors, not about a larger strategic goal. But obviously, look, I mean, we've said with respect to the PKK that – we've long said we want them to renounce violence and terrorism and return to the negotiating table. So I mean, I'm not going to parse or try to match what I'm saying with what the EU is saying. I think in general, though, obviously we share the same ultimate goals as our European partners do.

QUESTION: John, on --

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR KIRBY: I'm going to go – she's been asking for Syria, and then I'll go back to you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks much. Last night, Amnesty International issued a press release saying that a month ago, it presented the Pentagon with evidence that 11 coalition airstrikes in Syria appear to have led to the deaths of as many as 300 civilians, and that so far that evidence has been met with silence. Why the silence? Do you know?

MR KIRBY: Well, I would refer you to my Defense Department colleagues on this. As you know, we take seriously all credible allegations of civilian casualties. The Pentagon has a system, a fairly comprehensive system, for analyzing themselves what these allegations are, and then when they feel that they warrant further investigation, they do it. And unlike any other military around the world, they actually release the results of those investigations. And unlike any other military around the world, when they do that, if they have to hold people accountable for their actions, they do that too.

So your question is better put to the Pentagon. I'm not aware of what their take is on this report. Obviously, we take all such reports seriously and we support the Defense Department as they do the proper investigations.

QUESTION: So Amnesty's take here is that they said in their statement, quote, "We fear the U.S.-led coalition is significantly underestimating the harm caused to civilians in its operations in Syria." Your response?

MR KIRBY: Well, we welcome that input, and no reason not to. Believe me, no military tries harder than the United States military to limit, to prevent casualties to civilians or damage to civilian infrastructure. We take it very, very seriously. And again, not – we're not at all afraid to receive criticism about our efforts, and when we believe warranted, to fully investigate, and then, as I said, announce the results of that investigation.

So look, as I understand it, this report just came in. I'm gathering that we're probably still going through this, but I can assure you that the Pentagon takes all allegations of civilian casualties very, very seriously.

QUESTION: Just one more. So in the case of the 11 strikes that Amnesty examined, the group reported that to date, CENTCOM has acknowledged only one civilian casualty resulting from those operations. Do you think the Pentagon could be a bit lenient when investigating itself?

MR KIRBY: The – I can speak from a personal and long history that the Pentagon is not lenient on itself when it comes to investigating its own behavior and conduct, particularly in a time of war. In fact, nobody's tougher on themselves than military leaders. And again, I would stress to you no other military – no other military – takes this matter more seriously than the United States.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Syria. Any update on the talks in Geneva?

MR KIRBY: No. I don't have any updates for today. They continue.

QUESTION: One more. Turkish president has insisted today that he would liberate Manbij from YPG. Do you have any reaction to that?

MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments. But again, I would tell you, as I said yesterday, and I think the day before, that we want – uncoordinated military activity, particularly in that area, is not conducive to ultimate success against Daesh. And we want all members of the coalition to focus their efforts against Daesh and to do so in a coordinated fashion.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey. Just going back to the detention of the Diyarbakir co-mayors. These are pre-trial detention. Would you urge Turkish Government – or what's your give on this pre-trial detention without putting them – these are the people elected by 55 percent of the vote, and elected officials.

MR KIRBY: I think I answered that question before, that we would urge Turkish law enforcement and other authorities to act with due restraint and respect for freedom of expression. And as Turkish authorities investigate allegations that some local officials have participated in terrorist acts or are supporting terrorist groups, that we would, again, note the importance of due process.

QUESTION: Human Rights Watch NGO just issued a report two days ago regarding the claims of emergency rule in Turkey, and basically saying that it gives a blank check to Turkey's security forces. Do you – have you seen the report? Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: As I understand it, we're still going through that Human Rights Watch report. I really don't have much more to comment on that.

QUESTION: U.S.-based, California-based company, Procera Networks, apparently it has given software to Turkey, sold software to Turkey, and Turkey – a Turk telecom has been using that to spy on Turkish citizens. It has been a big report, news report in Turkey. Do you have any kind of sanctions on these kind of U.S.-based companies?

MR KIRBY: Again, I'm just not at liberty to comment on claims made by employees or former employees of a private company. I'd refer you to the company for questions like that.

I've got time for just a couple more.

QUESTION: Last question. About --

MR KIRBY: Last question? Of like seven or eight? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I know, I have more than – I'm sorry about that. There are about over 130 journalists have been – stay in Turkey. Most of them, majority of them put in jail since the emergency rule declared about more than three months ago. And you have not issued any statement regarding over 100 Turkey journalists. Does it mean that – is it not enough or important for you to --

MR KIRBY: Aw, come on.

QUESTION: -- express your concern, or --

MR KIRBY: Come on. That isn't --

QUESTION: You have not issued a statement.

MR KIRBY: I talk about --

QUESTION: But you --

MR KIRBY: -- the detention of journalists in Turkey all the time from this podium. You've got me on camera saying it a lot. And nothing has changed about our concern about the need for freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Turkey. In fact, I'd venture to say, sir, that I have probably talked more about press freedom in Turkey than in any other nation. The State Department has been nothing but clear and candid and forthright, publicly and privately, about our concerns over the state of journalism in Turkey. I stand by everything we've said, and that you may not have seen a written statement by me on any given day in the last week or two weeks or three weeks doesn't mitigate at all the very real concerns that we continue to have.

QUESTION: Time for half a question?

MR KIRBY: Half a question? (Laughter.) Can you – half a question means I only have to give you half an answer, right? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Please.

MR KIRBY: Matt would probably tell you that's all I'm doing anyway.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, that would be generous of you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: What is --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead. And then James, I'll finish up with you.

QUESTION: What is --

QUESTION: I got two or --

MR KIRBY: Oh, of course, you get two or three, yes.

QUESTION: I have – they're very, extremely brief.

QUESTION: What is the latest on position of Turkey's involvement in this ongoing war? Because Iraq is saying no, Turkey keeps repeating that we are going to Mosul, and then Raqqa, and --

MR KIRBY: Look, I mean, I'm not going to speak for the Turkish military and what their plans or intentions are. What I can tell you is we want all efforts in this fight against Daesh to be coordinated through and with the coalition, and that uncoordinated activity is counterproductive to the result. I said that again yesterday. That hasn't changed. But I'm not going to speak for each member of the coalition and what they are or they are not doing. We have made our concerns about uncoordinated activity, we've made that clear to all members of the coalition, not just Turkey. Okay?

QUESTION: North Korea?

MR KIRBY: James.

QUESTION: Thank you, John. In 2012, Secretary Clinton's final year as secretary of state, federal lobbying records show that a leading defense contractor hired a trio of lobbyists to lobby the Department of State for a larger share of Foreign Military Sales contracts, by which, as you know, advanced weapons systems are shared with other countries. The federal lobbying records show that all three of those lobbyists were large donors or bundlers for Hillary Clinton in both her 2008 and 2016 campaigns. Among those lobbyists was Heather Podesta, whose brother-in-law that year was John Podesta, who that year was serving as a counselor at the Department of State for approximately $130,000 a year and also a member of a policy advisory board that Secretary Clinton created.

As it happened, the gambit appeared to have worked because that defense contractor's share of Foreign Military Sales contracts surged in 2012 with three contracts alone for provision of advanced systems to Qatar totaling for that firm some $19 billion in contracts. Even if no laws were broken, it would seem a fairly cozy situation, would it not?

MR KIRBY: Well, thanks, James. What I would tell you is that there's a standard procedure here for how contracts are considered and vetted and decided on. And if you'll allow me, I'll just walk through a little bit of that.

QUESTION: Please.

MR KIRBY: Each request is assessed on its own merits, on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act and the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy. And based upon ongoing defense cooperation engagements by both the Department of Defense and the Department of State with foreign counterparts, each request from a partner nation must be reviewed and approved by several bureaus within the Department of State and the Department of Defense, which all must generally come to a consensus before recommending approval. So then, as required under the Arms Control Export Act, proposed major sales or transfers must be briefed and formally notified to Congress.

So these decisions are based on a pretty comprehensive interagency process that's pretty rigid too. It's not just something that any one official here at the State Department can say, "Yeah, let's go ahead and do it." And the other thing is they're based solely and completely on the foreign policy objectives of the United States of America and nothing else factors into that.

QUESTION: Statutorily, one official here at the Department of State is entrusted with final approval over these transfers. Am I correct about that?

MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, the ultimate responsibility, of course, rests on the Cabinet official – in this case, it would be the secretary of state; at DOD, it would be the secretary of defense. But they both have to be in concurrence here.

QUESTION: My understanding is State approves these transfers or contracts, Defense implements them. Am I wrong about that?

MR KIRBY: You're not wrong, but you're not completely right either. Obviously, the Foreign Military Sales program is a State Department program, but we do it in close coordination with DOD. Having been in that world, I can assure you that DOD gets – certainly gets a vote. And if there are disagreements between the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, those are ironed out at that level. So we don't move forward with Foreign Military Sales contracts unless everybody's on board with it, that there's a true interagency development.

But yes, who, quote/unquote, "signs off on the final sale"? Obviously, it's the secretary of state. That's the way it's enshrined in law. But that doesn't mean that there's no coordination or no requirement to make sure we've got a consensus view going forward. So I think we need to be careful when we say there's one person who makes this decision. While there is one person who has final signoff, that one person can't do it without a whole body of evidence and analysis and review and interagency consensus before they get to that point.

QUESTION: What we have here is a situation in which a trio of lobbyists who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Hillary Clinton's campaigns and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying her State Department on behalf of this defense contractor succeeded in securing contracts for that contractor that were far and above what they had received in previous years. And indeed, that contractor, after Secretary Clinton left office, essentially discontinued its lobbying relationships with those lobbyists.

So the appearance, John, is of – the appearance is akin to one of those pop-up stores that materializes just to sell Halloween candy or July 4th fireworks for a seasonal need, and after that seasonal need has been met, vanishes.

MR KIRBY: Well, I'll let you speak to the appearances, James. I mean, that's more your job than mine. I can only speak to process. And I certainly can't speak to the decision-making years ago, in terms of each and every contract; I wouldn't do that. What I can assure you, though, is that we remain confident in the system and the process that's in place, and in the very judicious manner in which contracts or Foreign Military Sales that are dependent upon certain contracts are executed. There is a very lengthy, rigorous, sometimes painfully slow – in fact, many of our partners complain about that process --

QUESTION: It wasn't in this case.

MR KIRBY: -- well, again, sometimes painfully slow that is done across the board. And there are no – the only considerations – the only considerations that are factored into the Foreign Military Sales program is the furtherance of foreign policy objectives of the United States of America and not the efforts by external groups to lobby, as you say, or to influence that decision. The decisions are made, again, across the interagency and only in furtherance of our foreign policy objectives.

QUESTION: One last question. You've been very kind. Throughout your answers to mine and others' questions today, you have frequently relied on your personal knowledge of how things work at this agency and the Pentagon, as well.

So I'm going to ask you in that vein to tell me: Should we imagine that at a time when John Podesta was a salaried counselor here – this very man who wound up as Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, and who is much in the news these days – should we imagine at the very time that John Podesta was a salaried counselor here, Secretary Clinton would have been unaware that her department was being lobbied by Mr. Podesta's sister-in-law?

MR KIRBY: I cannot answer that question. I do not know. I would refer you to the former secretary.

QUESTION: But you know how things work. You're all too frequently telling us you know how things work.

MR KIRBY: But I don't know what – I don't know what former Secretary Clinton was aware of in terms of Mr. Podesta's relatives and the jobs that they were doing at the time. I couldn't possibly speak to that. What I can assure you, though, is – and you know, James, you've been around long enough – you know what the Foreign Affairs Policy Board does, and yes, Mr. Podesta was a member of the board at the time. I can assure you that his role in the Foreign Affairs Policy Board played absolutely no role in this or any other Foreign Military Sales program. That's not the objective of the board, that's not their purview, and that he would, as a member of the board, have no role in that, no – none whatsoever.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: You're welcome. Listen, guys, I've got – oh sorry, you have the – you had --

QUESTION: Let me just get these last – it's very, very, very brief. One is just – in your response to the questions about the Amnesty International report, you said several times you don't – you know of no other military in the world that conducts investigations, publishes the results, and then punishes the – if necessary, holds people up to account --

MR KIRBY: I think I said I know of no other military in the world that does it --

QUESTION: At all?

MR KIRBY: -- as thoroughly as we do.

QUESTION: Oh, okay, as thoroughly as you do.

MR KIRBY: Yes. Obviously, other militaries --

QUESTION: But you surely wouldn't suggest your NATO allies are substandard in this?

MR KIRBY: Oh no, I didn't mean that nobody else investigates. I just mean nobody takes it more seriously than we do.

QUESTION: Okay, all right, then another UN issue. This is the UNESCO vote today on the Jerusalem resolution.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I – it's already been addressed there and elsewhere that the --

MR KIRBY: So you don't want me to read to you?

QUESTION: No, I --

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: -- want to know that – but it has an effect in Washington. I want to know that – if – whether you guys, given this vote today to approve this resolution that you so stridently oppose, if you are still pushing Congress to restore funding – U.S. funding that was suspended to UNESCO?

MR KIRBY: I'll check on that. I'm pretty sure we are, but let me check on that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Okay, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:47 p.m.)